Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Laws Needed? (Second Try)

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 7:18:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...

More about : laws needed

Anonymous
June 17, 2005 2:48:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...

Short of eliminating copyright laws (as Richard Stallman adovates) or
making enforcement of the law even less financially feasible, what
change in the law are you proposing?

If WalMart (or anyone else) doesn't feel the risk of a particular
transaction isn't worth the profit, and they aren't discriminating
by race, religion, gender, or other "suspect classifications" they
should be free to refuse that business. It's not like WalMart has
a monopoly on providing prints from digital cameras.

Businesses have to make this sort of risk-reward decision every day.
The ones that are good at it thrive -- the others don't. While there
are real digital "chain of custody" issues, I believe these can be
addressed far better, although still imperfectly, via technology
rather than legislation.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:21:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> writes:
> I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...

Yucch. Well, the simple solution is to print some business cards that
say "<Your name>, Photographer" - "Weddings, portraits, product
photography" or something like that, so it looks like what a pro
photographer would use. Then get someone to pay you 5 cents to take
their picture and presto, you're a professional.

Now when the lab says "that shot looks like it was taken by a
professional", you can say "yes, of course it was", and hand them your
business card.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:37:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Benveniste wrote:

> While there are real digital "chain of custody" issues, I believe these
> can be addressed far better, although still imperfectly, via technology
> rather than legislation.

Without legislation -- the threat of punishment -- the technology won't
get used, let alone created, as it has no other value whatsoever in
almost all situations. Anyways, "chain of custody" is completely moot
for cameras that are firmware upgradable in the field. If you can't
trust the camera -- the end of the chain -- then what's the point?

A much simpler technological solution to all of these problems: buy
your own printer. I personally perfer monitors, since wallspace is
finite.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:47:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kitt <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote:

>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>
>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...

Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.


--
Ken Tough
June 17, 2005 5:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> Kitt <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>
>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>
>
> Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
> retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.
>
>


Allow me to clarify your comment for those that still don't know...

rubbish = Walmart

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:47:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Ken Tough wrote:
>
>> Kitt <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>
>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>
>>
>>
>> Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
>> retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.
>>
>
>
> Allow me to clarify your comment for those that still don't know...
>
> rubbish = Walmart
>

That is a simplistic, and elitist response, and doesn't make any sense
at all. I suppose that the overall quality of a Wal-Mart print may be
below the overall quality of a professional photo lab's prints, but I
suspect that there are poor photo labs, and extraordinary Wal-Mart
locations as well. If the equipment is in good repair, properly
maintained, and operated properly, most of the current machines will
produce fine prints. In all probability, the same hardware is doing the
prints at the photo lab.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:47:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:42 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Jer wrote:
>> Ken Tough wrote:
>>
>>> Kitt <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>
>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
>>> retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Allow me to clarify your comment for those that still don't know...
>>
>> rubbish = Walmart
>>
>
>That is a simplistic, and elitist response, and doesn't make any sense
>at all. I suppose that the overall quality of a Wal-Mart print may be
>below the overall quality of a professional photo lab's prints, but I
>suspect that there are poor photo labs, and extraordinary Wal-Mart
>locations as well. If the equipment is in good repair, properly
>maintained, and operated properly, most of the current machines will
>produce fine prints. In all probability, the same hardware is doing the
>prints at the photo lab.

I'm not a pro.
But, I daresay that if I were, I would not be going to WalMart for the
final prints. And, again, if I were a pro, I'd be using my own
printers for most of the not-final products.

IOW, WalMart is not where pros go for having their prints done.
In my opinion, of course. :-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:55:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...

The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
prints made.

This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
other photolabs responsible.

Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
printed is responsible, no one else.

LRH
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 7:26:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:

> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
> prints made.

Mr. Smith is a penniless welfare case who illicitly gets RoofYellow's
-- a nationally franchised print shop -- to make prints of highly
valuable copyrighted works created by Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones finds out about this heinous act of crime and he is incensed!

Who is he going to sue? Penniless Mr. Smith, or rich and prosperous
RoofYellow's?

Later on, after successfully extracting millions from RoofYellow's and
learning how to live off the avails of the court system, Mr. Jones
learns of a legislative effort to remove 'vicarious liability' from the
printers of images. The bill is supported by Mr. Sleeze, a Demoplican,
and opposed by Mr. Slime, a Republicrat. Mr. Jones senses the deep
problem with this sort of thing, and feels the need to contribute to a
PAC (he certainly has enough money). What is the name he writes onto
the check?
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 10:31:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Jun 2005 11:37:54 -0700, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:


>Without legislation -- the threat of punishment -- the technology won't
>get used, let alone created, as it has no other value whatsoever in
>almost all situations.

Copyright laws providing both civil and criminal penalties already
exist. In fact, the photographer in this case ran up against someone
who was in good faith trying to follow the law.

The perceived need to demonstrate that a digital image hasn't been
altered after recording already exists. While a charge of
alteration won't prevent a photograph from being introduced as
evidence in court, such factual challenges can plant doubt in the
minds of jurors. Of course, there are also laws against evidence
tampering.

Again I ask, what do you want to see in this new law?

>Anyways, "chain of custody" is completely moot for cameras that are
>firmware upgradable in the field.

I don't see how that follows. While it is impossible to prove a
negative (i.e. this photo wasn't altered), today's cryptologic
techniques could verify to a high degree of certainty that a given
camera body loaded with a given version of firmware took a picture.

I won't deny that given sufficient time and computing power, any
scheme can be cracked, but we have the technology today to make such
an attack so expensive that the hacker would resort to other measures.

As I said, imperfect, but far better than any "legal" solution
I can think of.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:31:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> In all probability, the same hardware is doing the
> prints at the photo lab.

The scanning hardware certainly isn't.

And a good pro lab prints on photographic paper, not that ink based garbage.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I'm not a pro.
> But, I daresay that if I were, I would not be going to WalMart for the
> final prints. And, again, if I were a pro, I'd be using my own
> printers for most of the not-final products.

I met a "pro" who took her work to Sams club. No great loss - her work was
TERRIBLE and didn't deserve the fine touch of a pro lab.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
June 18, 2005 12:55:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> "Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>
>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>
>
> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
> prints made.
>
> This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
> entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
> photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
> honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
> those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
> other photolabs responsible.
>
> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
> printed is responsible, no one else.
>
> LRH
>
>


You're preaching to the choir here... what we need to do is worm
ourselves into a few juries to set them all straight on this issue.
Whomever sat on the first jury that allowed this to happen in the first
place, thereby setting a precedent for the followers, ought to be
bitch-slapped.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:55:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> writes:
> You're preaching to the choir here... what we need to do is worm
> ourselves into a few juries to set them all straight on this
> issue. Whomever sat on the first jury that allowed this to happen in
> the first place, thereby setting a precedent for the followers, ought
> to be bitch-slapped.

The culprit is judges and legislators, not juries. These are legal
questions. Juries only decide factual questions.
June 18, 2005 1:04:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Ken Tough wrote:
>>
>>> Kitt <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>
>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
>>> retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allow me to clarify your comment for those that still don't know...
>>
>> rubbish = Walmart
>>
>
> That is a simplistic, and elitist response, and doesn't make any sense
> at all. I suppose that the overall quality of a Wal-Mart print may be
> below the overall quality of a professional photo lab's prints, but I
> suspect that there are poor photo labs, and extraordinary Wal-Mart
> locations as well. If the equipment is in good repair, properly
> maintained, and operated properly, most of the current machines will
> produce fine prints. In all probability, the same hardware is doing the
> prints at the photo lab.
>
>


It is a bit simplistic, so allow me to expound... I don't do business
with Walmart because I think their business model is a sham. In fact,
I've known whores that are more honest about their own, albeit similar,
business models. My comment wasn't solely related to their photo
reproduction expertise despite how suspect that may be, it was more
related to my opinion of Walmart as a whole. Given the choice of who I
do business with, Walmart is not even.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:43:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>In all probability, the same hardware is doing the
>>prints at the photo lab.
>
>
> The scanning hardware certainly isn't.
>
> And a good pro lab prints on photographic paper, not that ink based garbage.
>
Which shows you no absolutely NOTHING about the equipment used by
Wal-Mart for making photos.
Try visiting a store, and observing.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:47:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tough wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kitt <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
>>>> retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allow me to clarify your comment for those that still don't know...
>>>
>>> rubbish = Walmart
>>>
>>
>> That is a simplistic, and elitist response, and doesn't make any sense
>> at all. I suppose that the overall quality of a Wal-Mart print may be
>> below the overall quality of a professional photo lab's prints, but I
>> suspect that there are poor photo labs, and extraordinary Wal-Mart
>> locations as well. If the equipment is in good repair, properly
>> maintained, and operated properly, most of the current machines will
>> produce fine prints. In all probability, the same hardware is doing
>> the prints at the photo lab.
>>
>>
>
>
> It is a bit simplistic, so allow me to expound... I don't do business
> with Walmart because I think their business model is a sham. In fact,
> I've known whores that are more honest about their own, albeit similar,
> business models. My comment wasn't solely related to their photo
> reproduction expertise despite how suspect that may be, it was more
> related to my opinion of Walmart as a whole. Given the choice of who I
> do business with, Walmart is not even.
>
Ah yes, your 'no profit' concept. Anyone who makes a profit is evil....
Sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:50:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> "Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>
>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>
>
> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
> prints made.
>
> This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
> entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
> photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
> honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
> those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
> other photolabs responsible.
>
> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
> printed is responsible, no one else.
>
> LRH
>
>
I quite agree. We need to extend the 'common carrier' laws to cover
this type of situation.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 8:28:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:55:30 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Larry R
Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> in <3NGse.965$iG5.547@fed1read05>
wrote:

>"Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>
>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>
>The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
>regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
>solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
>prints made.
>
>This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
>entities responsible

It is actually a *protection* for those involved. Think of a death
instead of simply a stolen photo (btw, the above article link does not
work at the moment). With the corporate shield you can sue, but that
is all. Without the corporate shield the individuals, and likely the
owners (read that as shareholders if you will) can become *criminally*
liable. That is, if a company causes a persons death, without
corporate shield, the owners could end up in jail.

>--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
>photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
>honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
>those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
>other photolabs responsible.

Remarkably enough humans are not perfect. I guess we need to have some
kind of rules.

>Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
>fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
>infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
>printed is responsible, no one else.

Assuming they have done due diligence. I assume they tell their people
to not do this (whatever this is, I did not read the article), and
they deal with known cases of people violating the rules. I assume
WalMart has done that, but plenty of places don't bother.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:58:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>
This is going over the top in the extreme. OK so if someone brought a CD to
me to copy and the CD was a recorded (burned) one and there was no copyright
notice on the images, I would print them for the customer after they signed
one of my legal exoneration forms accepting liability for any possible legal
action.

Some people have odd attituded without any idea of proceedures to use. What
is wrong with having a "declaration re copyright" notice? I absolutely don't
think more (changed?) laws are good for anyone. If someone came up with the
idea of repealing laws anywhere near as fast as they create them, I'd be in
that, like a rat up a drain pipe!

Douglas
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:58:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> This is going over the top in the extreme. OK so if someone brought a CD
to
> me to copy and the CD was a recorded (burned) one and there was no
copyright
> notice on the images, I would print them for the customer after they
signed
> one of my legal exoneration forms accepting liability for any possible
legal
> action.

As KINKO's found out in a landmark trademark case, those liability
transference forms aren't legal.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:09:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark writes:

> The scanning hardware certainly isn't.

Both cheapo one-hour labs and pro labs now often use the same type of
equipment for the same type of prints, i.e., A4 prints go through the
Frontier, no matter which lab does them.

> And a good pro lab prints on photographic paper, not that ink
> based garbage.

A Frontier prints on photo paper, and any lab can afford one, not just
the "pro" labs.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:13:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ryadia@home writes:

> This is going over the top in the extreme. OK so if someone brought a CD to
> me to copy and the CD was a recorded (burned) one and there was no copyright
> notice on the images, I would print them for the customer after they signed
> one of my legal exoneration forms accepting liability for any possible legal
> action.

That's the behavior I would expect. If the customer is willing to
affirm in writing that he is legally permitted to reproduce the images,
that should be sufficient. There's no way for the lab to actually
verify who the real photographer might be, anyway, so this is about the
only choice that exists.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark writes:

> As KINKO's found out in a landmark trademark case, those liability
> transference forms aren't legal.

Do you have a pointer to this case?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:15:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry R Harrison Jr writes:

> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
> printed is responsible, no one else.

People sue Wal-Mart because it has a lot more money than an individual
infringer, not because it is actually guilty of any infringement.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:52:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:fuGse.91481$VH2.33788@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

>
> As KINKO's found out in a landmark trademark case, those liability
> transference forms aren't legal.
>
> --
> Mark
>
Only in America, Mt Mark.
The rest of the world is a lot more accomodating than having laws to protect
the guilty.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:10:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Jer wrote:
>> Ken Tough wrote:
>>> Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
>>> retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.

>> Allow me to clarify your comment for those that still don't know...
>> rubbish = Walmart

>That is a simplistic, and elitist response, and doesn't make any sense
>at all. I suppose that the overall quality of a Wal-Mart print may be
>below the overall quality of a professional photo lab's prints, but I
>suspect that there are poor photo labs, and extraordinary Wal-Mart
>locations as well. If the equipment is in good repair, properly
>maintained, and operated properly, most of the current machines will
>produce fine prints. In all probability, the same hardware is doing the
>prints at the photo lab.

It's not just the quality of the product that makes a retailer
rubbish. It's also the service they provide, how they source
the product, etc. People grump about the fact that Walmart won't
print their pics, or that the Chinese are swamping US with imports
and taking their mfg jobs, and that big corporations make products
in sweatshops, but they still can't drag themselves away from the
lowest bottom line. If you want to be treated like a pro and not
like someone who needs to ask permission to buy a print, then go
to a pro shop. Sure, Walmart might have similar quality output but
you most always get what you pay for.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:14:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:50:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <zCOse.1619$mD6.613@fe07.lga> wrote:

>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>> "Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>
>>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>
>>
>> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
>> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
>> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
>> prints made.
>>
>> This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
>> entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
>> photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
>> honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
>> those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
>> other photolabs responsible.
>>
>> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
>> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
>> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
>> printed is responsible, no one else.
>>
>> LRH
>>
>>
>I quite agree. We need to extend the 'common carrier' laws to cover
>this type of situation.

It, or something similar, probably does. I had not read the article
and guess wrong about the situation. Walmart is being silly (and
shortsighted). KMart should have fought the lawsuit. Every photo is
copyrighted. All they really have to do is add some boilerplate that
says that the person asking for the photos claims the right to copy
them. In fact, by having this silly policy they are just opening
themselves up. Professionals can take non-professional looking shots,
amateurs can care about copyright. But having a bad policy they might
take on liability when they "do wrong".



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:14:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:14:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:50:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
><rphunter@charter.net> in <zCOse.1619$mD6.613@fe07.lga> wrote:
>
>>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>>> "Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>
>>>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>
>>>
>>> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
>>> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
>>> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
>>> prints made.
>>>
>>> This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
>>> entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
>>> photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
>>> honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
>>> those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
>>> other photolabs responsible.
>>>
>>> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
>>> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
>>> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
>>> printed is responsible, no one else.
>>>
>>> LRH
>>>
>>>
>>I quite agree. We need to extend the 'common carrier' laws to cover
>>this type of situation.
>
>It, or something similar, probably does. I had not read the article
>and guess wrong about the situation. Walmart is being silly (and
>shortsighted). KMart should have fought the lawsuit. Every photo is
>copyrighted. All they really have to do is add some boilerplate that
>says that the person asking for the photos claims the right to copy
>them. In fact, by having this silly policy they are just opening
>themselves up. Professionals can take non-professional looking shots,
>amateurs can care about copyright. But having a bad policy they might
>take on liability when they "do wrong".

I'm not a lawyer,and I don't even play one on Saturday mornings... :-)
It would seem to me that if WalMart has a policy in place that keeps
them from having to spend big bucks defending themselves over a
possible copyright infingement, it probably saves them more than they
lose by refusing to process some photos because of that policy.

I've been in WalMart; any such policy they have doesn't seem to be
losing them much money, from my observations (such as they are).
At under 20 cents per picture, they have to lose a lot of business to
equal *one* such defense.

As an aside, we live in a sue-happy society. Start looking at how much
hospitals spend for insurance on their birthing operations. Did you
know many hospitals are making flat rules against vaginal births after
a caeserian, because of an under 5% problem rate, because of suits
even after the mother was advised of the possibility of complications,
and a waiver was signed and witnessed?
It's really no wonder tighter policies are being instituted; people in
general refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and see
businesses as having bottomless pockets.
Life can be rough. :-(

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
June 19, 2005 12:04:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Jer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken Tough wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kitt <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely if the pics are that good, it's worth leaving the rubbish
>>>>> retailers behind and just going to a pro photo lab.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allow me to clarify your comment for those that still don't know...
>>>>
>>>> rubbish = Walmart
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a simplistic, and elitist response, and doesn't make any
>>> sense at all. I suppose that the overall quality of a Wal-Mart print
>>> may be below the overall quality of a professional photo lab's
>>> prints, but I suspect that there are poor photo labs, and
>>> extraordinary Wal-Mart locations as well. If the equipment is in
>>> good repair, properly maintained, and operated properly, most of the
>>> current machines will produce fine prints. In all probability, the
>>> same hardware is doing the prints at the photo lab.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is a bit simplistic, so allow me to expound... I don't do business
>> with Walmart because I think their business model is a sham. In fact,
>> I've known whores that are more honest about their own, albeit
>> similar, business models. My comment wasn't solely related to their
>> photo reproduction expertise despite how suspect that may be, it was
>> more related to my opinion of Walmart as a whole. Given the choice of
>> who I do business with, Walmart is not even.
>>
> Ah yes, your 'no profit' concept. Anyone who makes a profit is evil....
> Sigh.
>
>


Then, presumably, you'd be interested in...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 2:47:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:20:40 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Bill Funk
<BigBill@there.com> in <kuo8b1pfsrn3ekofs9t86igv66cu19dput@4ax.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:14:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:50:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>><rphunter@charter.net> in <zCOse.1619$mD6.613@fe07.lga> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>>>> "Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
>>>> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
>>>> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
>>>> prints made.
>>>>
>>>> This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
>>>> entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
>>>> photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
>>>> honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
>>>> those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
>>>> other photolabs responsible.
>>>>
>>>> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
>>>> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
>>>> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
>>>> printed is responsible, no one else.
>>>>
>>>> LRH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I quite agree. We need to extend the 'common carrier' laws to cover
>>>this type of situation.
>>
>>It, or something similar, probably does. I had not read the article
>>and guess wrong about the situation. Walmart is being silly (and
>>shortsighted). KMart should have fought the lawsuit. Every photo is
>>copyrighted. All they really have to do is add some boilerplate that
>>says that the person asking for the photos claims the right to copy
>>them. In fact, by having this silly policy they are just opening
>>themselves up. Professionals can take non-professional looking shots,
>>amateurs can care about copyright. But having a bad policy they might
>>take on liability when they "do wrong".
>
>I'm not a lawyer,and I don't even play one on Saturday mornings... :-)

I am not a Usenet poster, I just play one on the Internet.

>It would seem to me that if WalMart has a policy in place that keeps
>them from having to spend big bucks defending themselves over a
>possible copyright infingement, it probably saves them more than they
>lose by refusing to process some photos because of that policy.

Except that their policy has little to do with the declared goal. And
with such a policy they can become liable for all of the copyright
violations they allow.

>I've been in WalMart; any such policy they have doesn't seem to be
>losing them much money, from my observations (such as they are).
>At under 20 cents per picture, they have to lose a lot of business to
>equal *one* such defense.

Which is likely to happen.

>As an aside, we live in a sue-happy society.

I just read the same thing regarding Shakespeare's time. I wonder if
either statement really has much meaning.

>Start looking at how much
>hospitals spend for insurance on their birthing operations. Did you
>know many hospitals are making flat rules against vaginal births after
>a caeserian, because of an under 5% problem rate, because of suits
>even after the mother was advised of the possibility of complications,
>and a waiver was signed and witnessed?
>It's really no wonder tighter policies are being instituted; people in
>general refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and see
>businesses as having bottomless pockets.

The other way to look at it is that companies are not being forced to
take responsibility for their actions. All depends on who's ox is
being gored.

>Life can be rough. :-(

--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 2:47:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:47:33 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:20:40 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Bill Funk
><BigBill@there.com> in <kuo8b1pfsrn3ekofs9t86igv66cu19dput@4ax.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:14:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:50:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>>><rphunter@charter.net> in <zCOse.1619$mD6.613@fe07.lga> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>>>>> "Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
>>>>> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
>>>>> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
>>>>> prints made.
>>>>>
>>>>> This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
>>>>> entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
>>>>> photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
>>>>> honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
>>>>> those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
>>>>> other photolabs responsible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
>>>>> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
>>>>> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
>>>>> printed is responsible, no one else.
>>>>>
>>>>> LRH
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I quite agree. We need to extend the 'common carrier' laws to cover
>>>>this type of situation.
>>>
>>>It, or something similar, probably does. I had not read the article
>>>and guess wrong about the situation. Walmart is being silly (and
>>>shortsighted). KMart should have fought the lawsuit. Every photo is
>>>copyrighted. All they really have to do is add some boilerplate that
>>>says that the person asking for the photos claims the right to copy
>>>them. In fact, by having this silly policy they are just opening
>>>themselves up. Professionals can take non-professional looking shots,
>>>amateurs can care about copyright. But having a bad policy they might
>>>take on liability when they "do wrong".
>>
>>I'm not a lawyer,and I don't even play one on Saturday mornings... :-)
>
>I am not a Usenet poster, I just play one on the Internet.
>
>>It would seem to me that if WalMart has a policy in place that keeps
>>them from having to spend big bucks defending themselves over a
>>possible copyright infingement, it probably saves them more than they
>>lose by refusing to process some photos because of that policy.
>
>Except that their policy has little to do with the declared goal. And
>with such a policy they can become liable for all of the copyright
>violations they allow.

I'm interested in how you came to this conclusion.
What do they do that says their stated goal (of limiting their
exposure to copyright infringement suits) is, essentially, a lie?
>
>>I've been in WalMart; any such policy they have doesn't seem to be
>>losing them much money, from my observations (such as they are).
>>At under 20 cents per picture, they have to lose a lot of business to
>>equal *one* such defense.
>
>Which is likely to happen.

Again, you seem to think that a polkicy should be somehow absolute.
That this policy, for example, will (or should) cover *all* possible
copyright violations.
You don't really mean that, do you?
>
>>As an aside, we live in a sue-happy society.
>
>I just read the same thing regarding Shakespeare's time. I wonder if
>either statement really has much meaning.

Methinks thou doest protest too much. :-)
>
>>Start looking at how much
>>hospitals spend for insurance on their birthing operations. Did you
>>know many hospitals are making flat rules against vaginal births after
>>a caeserian, because of an under 5% problem rate, because of suits
>>even after the mother was advised of the possibility of complications,
>>and a waiver was signed and witnessed?
>>It's really no wonder tighter policies are being instituted; people in
>>general refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and see
>>businesses as having bottomless pockets.
>
>The other way to look at it is that companies are not being forced to
>take responsibility for their actions. All depends on who's ox is
>being gored.

They're not? Copyright suits aren't possible?
Doesn't what you just said argue *against* the implementation of such
policies?
>
>>Life can be rough. :-(

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 9:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> writes:
> As KINKO's found out in a landmark trademark case, those liability
> transference forms aren't legal.

I don't think that Kinko's case applies to this. The Kinko's
situation was professors were bringing in articles photocopied from
journals, textbooks, etc. complete with author credits, page numbers
from the originals, etc.; and Kinko's was printing them up as course
readers and selling them to anyone who asked for them. Kinko's was
basically acting as a publishing company.

This photo situation is more like if I write a poem and bring a
printout into Kinkos and ask to get a copy made and I tell them (when
asked) that I wrote it myself. The poor noodge operating the copying
machines is now expected to be enough of a literary critic to decide
that the metaphors in the poem are too expressive to have been written
by an amateur; the poem must have been written by a professional and
therefore Kinko's could get in trouble for making a copy for me. Note
that there is no publication involved (I'm bringing in something and
trying to get a copy made that I can take with me; I'm not trying to
get Kinkos to sell copies to other people) and there's no prima facie
reason to believe the poem was published elsewhere (nobody else's name
on it, etc).

As for new laws needed, no we don't need that, we have too many and we
need to get rid of some.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:33:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > The scanning hardware certainly isn't.
>
> Both cheapo one-hour labs and pro labs now often use the same type of
> equipment for the same type of prints, i.e., A4 prints go through the
> Frontier, no matter which lab does them.

The consumer labs don't use drum scanners.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:34:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > And a good pro lab prints on photographic paper, not that ink based
garbage.
> >
> Which shows you no absolutely NOTHING about the equipment used by
> Wal-Mart for making photos.
> Try visiting a store, and observing.

I visited my pro lab before using them. The print the old fashioned way -
with an enlarger and photographic paper. Not at all the same as the Ritz at
the mall where they drop the film into a machine and then hope for the best.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:37:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > As KINKO's found out in a landmark trademark case, those liability
> > transference forms aren't legal.
> >
> > --
> > Mark
> >
> Only in America, Mt Mark.

Huh?

First, the laws in the "rest of the world" don't matter to me since I live
in the US.

> The rest of the world is a lot more accomodating than having laws to
protect
> the guilty.

Second, huh? Are you trying NOT to make sense?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:43:56 AM
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 3:33:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark writes:

> The consumer labs don't use drum scanners.

Presumably one provides only digital files to the lab. I do my own
scans.

--
Transpose gmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 3:33:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > The consumer labs don't use drum scanners.
>
> Presumably one provides only digital files to the lab. I do my own
> scans.

You own your own drum scanner?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 3:33:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark writes:

> I visited my pro lab before using them. The print the old fashioned way -
> with an enlarger and photographic paper.

Labs like that are increasingly scarce.

--
Transpose gmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 3:33:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > I visited my pro lab before using them. The print the old fashioned
way -
> > with an enlarger and photographic paper.
>
> Labs like that are increasingly scarce.

Unfortunately. I had to call around quite a bit before finding this one.


--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 7:22:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 06:51:46 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Bill Funk
<BigBill@there.com> in <jotab1hcuavrksejcstn0t7m4fuea2ns0l@4ax.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:47:33 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:20:40 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Bill Funk
>><BigBill@there.com> in <kuo8b1pfsrn3ekofs9t86igv66cu19dput@4ax.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:14:05 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:50:22 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>>>><rphunter@charter.net> in <zCOse.1619$mD6.613@fe07.lga> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>>>>>> "Kitt" <niteman3d@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1119003502.664109.11490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I posted this before, but I never saw it show up. Try again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050617/D8AP2C3O2.htm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The solution to this is simple. Don't hold labs responsible, because
>>>>>> regardless of what any laws or precent-setting court cases may allege, it is
>>>>>> solely the fault of the fraudlent person going to the lab & having the
>>>>>> prints made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This illustrates perfectly one of the main problems with holding the wrong
>>>>>> entities responsible--they ruin it for everyone else, the 98% of law-abiding
>>>>>> photographers who don't commit copyright infringement. Those of us who are
>>>>>> honest & forthright have to put up with this nonsense not just because of
>>>>>> those who commit infringment but because of judges who hold Walmart and the
>>>>>> other photolabs responsible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Walmart shouldn't be in the position of having to make judgment calls out of
>>>>>> fear of being sued. Walmart shouldn't be held liable for copyright
>>>>>> infringement. The person who stole the intellectual property & had it
>>>>>> printed is responsible, no one else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LRH
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I quite agree. We need to extend the 'common carrier' laws to cover
>>>>>this type of situation.
>>>>
>>>>It, or something similar, probably does. I had not read the article
>>>>and guess wrong about the situation. Walmart is being silly (and
>>>>shortsighted). KMart should have fought the lawsuit. Every photo is
>>>>copyrighted. All they really have to do is add some boilerplate that
>>>>says that the person asking for the photos claims the right to copy
>>>>them. In fact, by having this silly policy they are just opening
>>>>themselves up. Professionals can take non-professional looking shots,
>>>>amateurs can care about copyright. But having a bad policy they might
>>>>take on liability when they "do wrong".
>>>
>>>I'm not a lawyer,and I don't even play one on Saturday mornings... :-)
>>
>>I am not a Usenet poster, I just play one on the Internet.
>>
>>>It would seem to me that if WalMart has a policy in place that keeps
>>>them from having to spend big bucks defending themselves over a
>>>possible copyright infingement, it probably saves them more than they
>>>lose by refusing to process some photos because of that policy.
>>
>>Except that their policy has little to do with the declared goal. And
>>with such a policy they can become liable for all of the copyright
>>violations they allow.
>
>I'm interested in how you came to this conclusion.

It is pretty standard stuff. They are on the watch for copyright theft
so they are responsible for letting it happen.

>What do they do that says their stated goal (of limiting their
>exposure to copyright infringement suits) is, essentially, a lie?

I am not sure I understand your question. But a badly implemented goal
can cause trouble.

>>>I've been in WalMart; any such policy they have doesn't seem to be
>>>losing them much money, from my observations (such as they are).
>>>At under 20 cents per picture, they have to lose a lot of business to
>>>equal *one* such defense.
>>
>>Which is likely to happen.
>
>Again, you seem to think that a polkicy should be somehow absolute.
>That this policy, for example, will (or should) cover *all* possible
>copyright violations.
>You don't really mean that, do you?

No, I don't. But a porous policy is a bad idea. One that is as good as
you can do does not cause the same problem. The best thing they could
do is say that they just copy the pictures. Kinko's does that. They
won't copy a whole book, but they don't police the rest of the stuff.
Then they put up warnings and let it be.

>>>As an aside, we live in a sue-happy society.
>>
>>I just read the same thing regarding Shakespeare's time. I wonder if
>>either statement really has much meaning.
>
>Methinks thou doest protest too much. :-)

>>>Start looking at how much
>>>hospitals spend for insurance on their birthing operations. Did you
>>>know many hospitals are making flat rules against vaginal births after
>>>a caeserian, because of an under 5% problem rate, because of suits
>>>even after the mother was advised of the possibility of complications,
>>>and a waiver was signed and witnessed?
>>>It's really no wonder tighter policies are being instituted; people in
>>>general refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and see
>>>businesses as having bottomless pockets.
>>
>>The other way to look at it is that companies are not being forced to
>>take responsibility for their actions. All depends on who's ox is
>>being gored.
>
>They're not? Copyright suits aren't possible?
>Doesn't what you just said argue *against* the implementation of such
>policies?

No, I argue here that lawsuits are about determining responsibility.
Each side either claims the loss did not take place or claims the
other side is responsible. If you sue me and win (never going to
happen, I am right) you would say that you made me take
responsibility. I would say that you refused to take responsibility.

>>>Life can be rough. :-(

--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 10:53:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark writes:

> You own your own drum scanner?

No, but I don't need a drum scanner.

--
Transpose gmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 10:54:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark writes:

> Unfortunately. I had to call around quite a bit before finding this one.

There are very few situations in which optical enlargement offers any
real advantage. Many labs have discontinued enlargement services or
charge a tremendous amount of money for them.

--
Transpose gmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 6:31:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > You own your own drum scanner?
>
> No, but I don't need a drum scanner.

Depends on the quality you're going for. I don't need one for most work,
but if I do, my pro lab has one. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 6:39:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > As KINKO's found out in a landmark trademark case, those liability
> > transference forms aren't legal.
>
> I don't think that Kinko's case applies to this. The Kinko's
> situation was professors were bringing in articles photocopied from
> journals, textbooks, etc. complete with author credits, page numbers
> from the originals, etc.; and Kinko's was printing them up as course
> readers and selling them to anyone who asked for them. Kinko's was
> basically acting as a publishing company.

That's only part of the story. Kinkos was sued again in a class action
along with several other large companies, but AFAIK Kinko's settled out of
court. And while I worked there in '93 their corporate policy was to have
professionals photographers who wanted to use the color copier (back then it
was behind the counter) sign an indemnity form in which the holder of the
photos claimed ownership (not right to copy, but ownership) of the
photographs/slides/negatives.

> This photo situation is more like if I write a poem and bring a
> printout into Kinkos and ask to get a copy made and I tell them (when
> asked) that I wrote it myself. The poor noodge operating the copying
> machines is now expected to be enough of a literary critic to decide
> that the metaphors in the poem are too expressive to have been written
> by an amateur; the poem must have been written by a professional and
> therefore Kinko's could get in trouble for making a copy for me. Note
> that there is no publication involved (I'm bringing in something and
> trying to get a copy made that I can take with me; I'm not trying to
> get Kinkos to sell copies to other people) and there's no prima facie
> reason to believe the poem was published elsewhere (nobody else's name
> on it, etc).

I agree that the way in which the laws have been interpretted is overly
restrictive, and that Walmart/Kinkos/Wolf/Ritz/etc should not have to have
an attorney on site - and certainly $10 per hour employees shouldn't be
expected to make such judgement calls.

But what makes sense and what the lawyers do to twist the law are two
different things.

> As for new laws needed, no we don't need that, we have too many and we
> need to get rid of some.

Agreed. :) 

> Paul Rubin

Any relation to the great painter?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 6:39:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> writes:
> > Paul Rubin
> Any relation to the great painter?

Um, I'm not aware of a painter by that name, so probably no relation.
Not related to Pee Wee Herman either ;-).
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 10:47:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > > Paul Rubin
> > Any relation to the great painter?
>
> Um, I'm not aware of a painter by that name, so probably no relation.

Peter Paul Rubens.. I thought your family might have changed the e to i at
Ellis Island or something. <g>

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rubens/

> Not related to Pee Wee Herman either ;-).

For this I bet you are very thankful. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
!